What we need to know is, how important are these dinosaurs? Are any of them obscure, such that only a "dinosaur buff" would have heard of them? Or would these be significant enough to warrant inclusion? We have room for the articles, as long as they are not obscure. Please advise. Thanks, Walkerma 03:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... depends what you mean by "dinosaur buff"... there are really only about five dinosaurs that the average person has heard of: Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, and "Brontosaurus". Sheep81 03:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, my girlfriend and I were hiking up in the Whetstone Mountains, near where the first fossils of Sonorasaurus were discovered. We saw some old cattle bones on the ground, and I bent down to examine them. I said, purely tongue-in-cheek, "These bones must belong to Velociraptor!" I was stunned when she asked, "What's a Velociraptor?" Firsfron of Ronchester 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, knowledge varies - I still meet people who think that as an organic chemist I work on pesticide-free food - but some kids know quite a few more than 5. some that come to mind (remembering from when I was seven, I was an ankylosaurus btw) but unlisted here are plesiosaur, allosaurus, protoceratops (those eggs!) and brachiosaurus. But if that seven year old is sent scurrying to their dinosaur books, it's probably too obscure IMHO! Walkerma 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, out of those ones up there I'd only heard of Deinonychus, Styracosaurus & Saurolophus previously, but Species of Psittacosaurus should definitely be included as it would make a fine addition to the Psittacosaurus article already in the selection. I have to disagree though Sheepy - there are quite a few dinosaurs I'd expect most with a limited knowledge of them to know: Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Apatosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Allosaurus, Struthiomimus, Iguanodon, Deinonychus, Brachiosaurus, Protoceratops, Ceratosaurus, Compsognathus & Diplodocus. I might be a bit bias, but those probably should be the big ones that most should know. Alas, as Firs has pointed out, most are in bad shape. Let's just hope Firs' girlfriend doesn't read what he wrote. ;) In any case, lets face it, most of the world's children only know about dinosaurs from what Jurassic Park has taught them, and what a woeful example too! Honestly, would dinosaurs really be as famous if not for those movies? Just because some are not considered "popular" enough shouldn't mean that they are not included in an encyclopedia - not being professionally involved in paleontology, I was unaware of most obscure dinosaurs, but found that some were infinitely more interesting than the more popular ones. Anyway, Spawn Man 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great, Spawn! Your input is just exactly the sort of thing we need here: someone who is interested in dinosaurs, but with "limited knowledge", (like you and I). Someone who is interested in looking up information on dinosaurs should be able to find it, and someone who has only limited knowledge would still know when there wasn't enough to satisfy him/her. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One could make the argument that the movie wouldn't have been made in the first place had dinosaurs not already been popular... if one were so inclined. Sheep81 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd come here for more help. Of course, one of the most important events to dinosaurs is the K-T extinction event, but the article is pretty weak right now. Firs and I have been editing away to get it into much better shape. Any help you can give will be appreciated, even if it's not technically a dinosaur article, it is the event that means we don't see dinosaurs walking around. Except for birds of course. And living dinosaurs if you are so inclined. And the Loch Ness Monster obviously. Orangemarlin 06:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Groan one more time, and I'll place the WikiProject Dinosaurs tag on Flood geology because we all know dinosaurs were on the ark. Eating cat food apparently. Or if you read this, you'd know that they were all vegetarians anyways. However, back to reality and science, I was reading that it is possible that the polar populations of dinosaurs may have survived significantly past the K-T event. They speculate that Antarctic dinosaurs may have been used to the seasonal variations, and that the global impact may have been minor in polar regions for several hundred thousand or even millions of years. There needs to be further paleontological studies in the polar regions (I'm not volunteering). Orangemarlin 07:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I promise I won't groan, then! Hmm.. reading that link... "Includes a soul-winning message that is great for child evangelism! [...] Children will find it a fascinating discussion of one of their favorite subject" (sic). Mind-boggling.

As far as polar dinosaurs go, I suppose it's possible they survived the K-T event; very little has been recovered from Antarctica; only four dinosaurs have been excavated, and only two have been formally published. Australia, which was connected to Antarctica for much of the Mesozoic, also hasn't seen a lot of dinosaur fossil recovery (15 genera, not all of which are definitely Aussie in origin). But since the evidence of polar dinosaurs is pretty scrappy anyway... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, like a lot of polar herbivores today, they may have migrated out of the region during the long dark in the winter. In which case they wouldn't have done so well post-impact (nowhere to migrate). Plus, the thing about the polar winter... it ends at some point. Impact winter could have gone on for years (we don't know). Even if it only lasted a few months, it would have resulted in mass starvation, even in polar regions, if it hit right at the end of winter or in spring. No plant growth for a whole year is something that even polar animals can't tolerate. Sheep81 12:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryposaurus has just become a Good Article, thanks to Justin's improvements. As far as I can tell, this marks our 25th community-recognized improved content article (FAs or GAs). We should celebrate somehow. :)

Also: this project was founded on April 22nd, 2004, and since we've achieved 25 G/FAs; at that rate it will take roughly another 119 years to get the rest of the articles up to GA or FA status! ;) Hang in there, guys! We're almost there! Firsfron of Ronchester 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now if we can just get those guys to stop naming so many goddamned new dinosaurs for the next 119 years til we get caught up! Sheep81 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hee! At the average rate of one new dinosaur genus described each month, that's going to be quite a backlog. Maybe we could convince people that after writing a peer-reviewed paper, they have to write up their own new dinosaur taxa on a Wikipedia article for it to count under new ICZN rules? ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the stupid scientists would just take a little bit of time off from research and fieldwork, and just all join WP:DINO (what's really important), I'm sure we could finish a lot faster! Then they would be allowed to get back to whatever they were doing before. Sheep81 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Something smells live frivolity around here! Not good at all... ;) On a serious note, congrats on the new GA. Also, in regard to new Wikiprojects, we could do what the insanely successful Wikiproject Military History has done & create task forces. These aren't really whole Wikiprojects, but rather just little groups within the project devoted to one aspect of it. Could work...? Anyway, Spawn Man 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'll be the marginocephalian task force, J can be the ornithopod task force, Dinoguy can be the theropod task force... Spawn, Firsfron, and Cas Liber can split up the rest! Hehehe... Sheep81 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Project focus

Hi guys, I know I'm kinda in and out as an editor, and not closely involved in the WikiProject, but I feel I've got to say something about the focus the project seems to have — which is on genera articles. Some articles to get a huge amount of attention (Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, etc.) and it's fair enough that editors focus on them. But I think compiling comprehensive entries on lesser-known genera is distracting the focus of editors from more important articles on different topics.

There are also topics which while not specific to dinosaurs, are important for the context of dinosaur articles. For example phylogenetic bracketing is a measly stub which I wrote to cover the fact there was no article at all to explain a basic concept used all the freakin' time in dinosaur palaeontology.

I don't really know how to fix this, but perhaps the monthly collaboration should be something other than a genus once in a while?

You raise some good points. I for one would welcome more feedback on this and other issues from people not at the center of the project (because people closely involved with the project are more likely to experience "group-think" consiously or not). It's always good to get ideas from outside of the box.

I was looking at it from the standpoint of "we've got a thousand genera articles, some quite short, and there may be a lot of other articles that need work, but there definitely aren't a thousand of those". Also, I was thinking that some of those articles (like phylo bracketing, origin of birds, etc) could be worked on by non-WP:DINO people (like, why aren't the bird folks working on bird origins? There are so many active bird people). And I personally wouldn't be able to do much on phylo bracketing because my interest lies more with the animals themselves than on classification schemes, etc.

There's a monthly group collaboration vote, and I'd strongly encourage more editors to become involved in it, as no more than seven people have ever voted on any collaboration, so we are limited to what a few people want to work on. Plus, (and really, this is the main thing:) despite there being over 75 editors signed up for this project, the number of active editors willing to improve article content is very, very small. Perhaps some of the side-editors could assist by spreading the word of our small but openly recruiting WikiProject? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

like, why aren't the bird folks working on bird origins? There are so many active bird people Same issue different project. Easier to do bird species than try and tackle harder articles like families, orders and ornithological concepts. That particular issue might be addressed by a joint collaboration. Ultimately however people are going to do the articles they care about/want to do. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. BTW, I wasn't knocking the bird project; it's just you guys have so many active members, and... It's been good to have you around, though, Sabine. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take it as a knock. Simply, as the unofficial collaboration coordinator I know that colabs about species are much easier to get a response to than higher end concepts. And I wish I could do more to help you guys, I really should try harder. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We know you are mostly busy with the bird articles, Sabine. It is just great that you have stuck around, offering helpful comments and ideas. It is greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to John Conway: The task of dealing or fixing major articles such as Feathered Dinosaurs or Physiology of dinosaurs is daunting to say the least. So much could be written on them & it's simply offputting when we can easily get a couple of genus articles off to FAC every month or so with some effort. Being a co-maintainer of the Dino Collab, we don't encourage the nomination of non-genus articles. However, we don't discourage it either - it's really up to the people nominating. Cas did indeed put a formation article on for nomination & it recieved no votes. You can basically lead a Diplodocus to water, but you can't make it drink and you certainly can't make people vote for non-genus articles. You are mistaken however in the notion that no one ever works on those articles; we have people coming & posting here about how they're working on articles such as Dinosaur Renaissance etc & people do go & help them occassionally. Heck, considering there's a heck of a lot of articles smaller than most of those non-genus articles, I'd say we're doing alright considering a proper overview is in the Dinosaur article. But as Firsfron said, we've got very limited, full-time members (Me, Firs, Cas, Sheepy, Dinoguy etc). You can't expect us to lift our game (Personally I think we're doing our very best & that's all we need really). Advertising will most certainly not help - all you'll do is attract excited children who will add everything they know about Jurassic Park & the Lost World to T rex & other dinosaur articles. The chances of actually catching a fulltime, professional paleontologist or someone who knows about it is very slim. So overall, I believe that if someone wants to really contribute to dinosaur articles here, they will probably have no trouble finding our prject & considering this project is being cited as being very good at doing what we do, that being making great dinosaur articles, I see no reason to have to change what we're doing. In fact, I find it insulting that heaving out FA after FA on an obscure subject with only two failed FACs ever isn't considered good enough by some people... Just my thoughts. Spawn Man 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man, I'm not asking people to do more work, heck, I know how difficult it can be to find time for the Wikipedia. My concern is that the limited resources available are not being put to optimal use. The origin of birds is much more important than Albertosaurus, or Thescelosaurus. Such articles should receive more attention, at the expense of genera articles if necessary. As for focusing on genera because it's the easiest way to increase your FA count, what can I say? WikiProjects are not FA factories; I really don't see where you're coming from on this.

P.S. It was me who asked for help on the dinosaur renaissance article. It received no major edits, and only a few minor ones. I'm not complaining, because I don't think it's really critical, but it's not like that was a shining example of project members setting foot outside of the genera articles! —John.Conway 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to Dinoguy about the two of us collaborating on Origin of birds and we have even discussed what we need to change (a lot). So that article in particular is on my to-do list, we're both just kinda busy right at the moment. There is work going on right now at K-T extinction event. And I would love to have a nice dinosaur physiology article but sadly I'm not terribly proficient at physiology and I would have to read some extraneous material to really do a good job on it... I definitely could do that but motivation is an issue. It is a lot easier to take a (scientifically) well-known dinosaur genus to FAC for me at least. I agree that these larger concepts are being neglected in favor of (relatively) insignificant genera articles, though, which is a shame. Albertosaurus is a cool dinosaur but kind of a dead end, whereas origin of birds... you see what I mean. Sheep81 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think origin of birds is the one I'm least worried about (people are bound to get interested in it sooner or later). Physiology of dinosaurs, though... I'm thinking will never get the attention it needs. Part of the problem is that everyone thinks it should be left to someone that knows about physiology. Well, there isn't anyone. Just like there isn't anyone to write the article on phylogenetic bracketing. I think we maybe need to bite the bullet and accept that while we might not be able to do it perfectly, but we may be able to improve significantly on what's there. — John.Conway 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way Sheep, where are you discussing the Origin of birds article with Dinoguy? Could you move the discussion to the Origin of birds talk page, so I (and other editors watching the page) can drop in on it occasionally? — John.Conway 15:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to JC's above comments - "My concern is that the limited resources available are not being put to optimal use. The origin of birds is much more important than Albertosaurus, or Thescelosaurus" - Says who? The only person who has complained about our system & us actually making articles featured is you. I don't think that any of us considers one article more important than the other. Consensus has already clearly stated that the majority want to work on genus articles, so we can't force people to not edit them. You can't just come in here, insult the articles we're working on, say we're not using our resources well enough (obviously FA's aren't good enough for you), say we shouldn't create FAs & then expect to be greeted nicely by us, well me at least. I, and all the team, have worked very hard to get this project just to this level. If we can create a great FA on a genus, I say go for it & who should be able to tell us that we shouldn't? You've already stated that you've worked on the Dino renaissanse article already, so I don't see why you couldn't possibly work slowly on the articles you've mentioned? You don't have to come & accuse us of not editing the right articles for an article to get expanded - by golly you could do it yourself! That's all I have to say right now. We've worked hard & to have someone come along & critisize it is deeply insulting. Spawn Man 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spawny, don't be insulted! :) John was just highlighting an area where we need improvement, and it's really important to get feedback from someone outside the "inner circle". He wasn't accusing us of anything, I assure you, and... let's not alienate someone who could help us improve content. I'm proud of what we've accomplished, but we've got to keep working at it, right? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man, I have worked, and plan to do much more work on the articles I mentioned. I don't think many people here would actually seriously argue that Thescelosaurus is a more important article than origin of birds (again, I'm not saying Thescelosaurus isn't a good article). The reason I started this discussion is to try to change the consensus, and editors habits, by drawing attention to a something I found concerning. It's not an issue of "forcing" anyone to do anything.

On a another note, I don't want to be rude here, but the way you react to me and other editors at even tangential criticism is very off-putting. It's been one of the main reasons I've steered clear of the dinosaur project. I know some other editors just think its a funny sort of quirk, but it just makes me hesitant to get involved. — John.Conway 11:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it was kinda rude, but then again, if you don't want to work with me here or get involved because of me, that's your decision. I am but a small part of the project, as are you. And since we're such small parts of a much larger project, I don't see the right we have coming in here & demanding others comform to our way of thinking, such as which articles are better or moe important than others & which we should work on. So far you are the only one who has had concern with our system. To put it bluntly, if some fringe dino editor came along to your wikiproject & said your system wasn't very good, that the article's you've been striving to get to the mark were the wrong ones & basically says you're detestible, woudl you greet him with open arms? If you were a more experienced & involved dinosaur editor, I'd probably listen to your ideas a bit better, even if they are a bit critical. But sicne you're not very much involved & haven't really experienced the who team effort of genus article editing etc, then I don't think it's your palce to come down so harshly on something you've never participated in. Just my opinion. Spawn Man 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I thought criticizing your reaction to criticism would actually give you pause to think about it... well, I'm an idiot!

Anyway, I think my point has been made, and generally well-received. So, so long Spawn Man, may we never meet again. — John.Conway 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've posted our discussion from me and Dinoguy's talk pages onto the article talk page. (hope that is okay Dinoguy). It isn't much but it's something. I'll have a looksy at dinosaur physiology and maybe even phylogenetic bracketing after that (no promises though). Sheep81 09:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, despite John's concerns, I just went ahead and nominated Daspletosaurus on the FAC page. I had it ready to go and I PROMISE I will work on bird origins next! Good luck to Daspi! By the way, the Ediacaran biota article is also up as an FAC, I know they are not dinosaurs, but it's not often a paleontology article that we didn't write is nominated! Sheep81 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

User:Warlordjohncarter has offered to set up an article assessment system for our wikiproject, and assess articles for quality. The assessment would require a few coding changes in our banner. What do we think? Would an article assessment system be helpful at this time, or would it take too much of our strained resources to maintain it? Other ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 12:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What would it entail, exactly? I'm not opposed to the idea, but I'm feeling cautious about it right now. Honestly, I'm a bit worried, given the current level of tension, that implementing assessment at this time could make people more irritable ("this isn't a Start-class! It's at least a B-class!"). J. Spencer 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's summer. People get hot, tired, and irritable. Guess you have a point about it possibly causing conflict. All it would entail is a change to the coding on the banner template, and Warlordjohncarter has kindly volunteered to get us started. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the articles would be pretty obvious to assess. In fact you can basically just look at the Dinosaur articles by size page and eyeball it. There might be a few that could be contentious, but I'm sure we can work those out. If anything, a disagreement might encourage people to improve the articles. I think an assessment would be fairly easy to implement, and it would look professional. However, I just want to be sure that assessing articles wouldn't take so much time that it interferes with writing articles. Sheep81 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the arguments at WP:BIRD that we've had about assessments are what qualifies as top, high, mid or low importance (not quality). Besides, anyone who disagrees with an assessment can just change it. It's a rough guide an as long as it isn't outrageous the standards can be applied flexibly. As for taking up time, it's something people do when they are to brainfried to contribute in any other meaningful way. That's the way I treat it. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should have an assessment for importance, but definitely for the quality. It would take a big push, but after that it would be pretty easy to maintain as very few dinosaurs are described every month. An importance assessment scale would be useless amongst dinosaur articles, as how would we ever tell the difference of importance between to genera of dinosaurs? Anyway, yes to the quality assessment scale thoguh. Spawn Man 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad on some of the other projects. Importance is good as when you see the big graph if you ee a high importance article cross-reffed with a stub or start class, you often get curious to go and improve it. Thus something like origin of birds may pop up there... Also, the crop of B class ones is a good jumping point to GA or FA - I've made a standing list on some other WPs to alert folk. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be hard to judge the importance of individual genera. Is Barosaurus more important than Anchiceratops? Hmmm...

However, we all recognize that certain taxa are more widely recognized than others. Someone may come to Wikipedia to learn about them, and in the process find out about its plethora of equally interesting but less well-known relatives. So popular animals like Tyrannosaurus and Stegosaurus are a good introduction to dinosaurs in general. "Gateway dinosaurs", so to speak. You could make the argument that from this perspective, familiar taxa have higher importance than, say, Byronosaurus which nobody has heard of. Other dinosaurs are historically important (Iguanodon, Hadrosaurus, Deinonychus). Some have been popularized in science fiction (Dilophosaurus, Velociraptor). Others are important from a phylogenetic perspective (Eoraptor, Guanlong). Or a paleobiological perspective (Maiasaura, Mei). Or a geographical perspective (Cryolophosaurus, Minmi). Or maybe they're just really freakin' huge (Argentinosaurus, Giganotosaurus). And then there are those which have just been in the news (Gigantoraptor, Sinosauropteryx). I'm not saying all of these are of top importance, but they seem to all have something which sets them apart from the hordes of underappreciated dinosaur genera. Basically, the way we could view "importance" of different taxa if we wanted could be "what dinosaurs are people going to come here to look at?" or "what dinosaurs can we use to get people more interested?" Sheep81 13:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Both criteria are useful. For WP:PLANTS, plants notable because of rescue effort or wide cultivation are given slightly higher levels than similar, otherwise lower importance species. Topics may receive similar assessments for widely differing reasons. Currently, Aster and its segregate receive a high (IIRC) ranking because of both horticultural and taxonomic interest. Circeus 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Generally, it's not very difficult to see what articles are "top" and "High" importance. And articles in the mid-to-low range are generally not worth worrying over their exact placement. Circeus 05:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice on evolution of birds

An editor removed the section on the alternate theory of birds from the main bird article, Feduccia et al and their finger in their ears "it ain't the dinosaurs" clamouring. Currently their theory gets two lines, one cite to Feduccia and one cite to a refutation. That editor, and another, have suggested removing the alternate theory from bird based on the fact that it gives the theory, widely discredited, undue weight. I put it back, since even though I disagree strongly with the theory (birds=dinos is a slam dunk for me) it seems to have enough of a following, especially with at least a few reasonably credible scientists (Storrs Olson being one of them). But maybe I'm wrong. I'd appreciate the thoughts of some of the dino peeps about this. Go fling some monkey poo around at Talk:Bird#Alternative theories and Alan Feduccia et al. Cheers! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 03:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Their work has been and continues to be published in major science journals. That removes the undue weight restriction right there. It doesn't mean we have to imply that they are right. Just mention the BAND argument, then report all the various refutations. Sheep81 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the "Features linking birds and dinosaurs Feathers, Skeleton, Lungs, Heart, Sleeping posture, Brooding, Care of young, Gizzard, & Molecular evidence" sections of the Origin of birds article are pretty much identical to the original sections in the Dinosaur article when I rewrote it for the FAC. We could simply copy & paste & later expand those sections from the Dinosaur article into the origin of birds article. This would save loads of time & if I'm correct, all those sections are cited in the dinosaur article. Plus we know it's good enough for a featured article, so I'd assume it would be good enough for that article too. Thoughts? Spawn Man 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a dinosaur but I'm giving you guys notice that such article exists, and it is quite a new discovery. Sorry if it's not a dinosaur I'm just not sure what Wikiproject to put it on. Berserkerz Crit 15:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Category: Fictional dinosaurs

I just left a note on the Rancor page about this, but I'm finding myself mightily confused about some of the entries in the category. I first thought it was only Rancor, but Lapras is certainly nowhere near dinosaurian (unless you are using the colloquial term 'dinosaur,' which includes plesiosaurs and other large reptiles living in parallel)... as such, consider me flustered - or, in fact, uninformed.

I guess it would be nice to at least see some sort of criterium on the category page that explains what classifies the creatures within as dinosaurs, exactly - I certainly was expecting something else. As a first shot at that, how about any reptilian with an upright (rather than lizard-like sprawl) stance? That is what makes dinosaurs special, after all. And promptly, it would make sense to include even the Rancor, though Lapras then still doesn't stand a chance.

Things I think can and maybe should be contested (and why):

Biollante - a plant by description, with some mosasaur sprinkled in. Unfortunately this is a topic I know nothing about.

Nidoqueen and Nidoking - because of the large, protruding ears*. Furless, yes, but I always likened them more to something along the lines of a bipedal rhinoceros.

Megalopseudosuchus - I don't know anything about this one, but the article text expressly mentions something non-dinosaurian: "Megalopseudosuchus alabamaensis ("giant false crocodile from alabama") is a fictional genus and species of gigantic prehistoric amphibian [...]"

Rancor - I'll admit I find it very hard to jot down a reason for this... but that's because I really can't think of why a Rancor is considered a dinosaur by anyone. I speed-read the article trying to find some sort of reference, and didn't.

Torterra - is apparently based on Akupara, though the text does, to be fair, mention semblance to Ankylosaurus, which is more than some articles I'm not contesting do. As such, probably Grotle, too. Note that Turtwig isn't in the category.

* About the ears: Call me nerdy, but I expect dinosaurs - or variants thereof - not to have stick-out ears that, as far as I know, are typical only for some mammals.

That's it. I'm not going through all subcategories, and I haven't analysed articles without a picture in my haste. I've tried to be as pedantic as possible, without being overbearing, in hopes that these few articles can be reviewed. For the sake of clarity as to where I stand, the only thing really bugging me is Rancor, Lapras, Megalopseudosuchus and Sauron (comics).

But first and foremost I would much rather see the criteria listed, even if all of the above are shot down. In essence I'm really just confused, that's all. :)

By the way, semi-related, shouldn't Raptor Red be in the Category:Dinosaurs in fiction? Or is that category only reserved for shows, rather than characters? If so, I think maybe the category "Fictional dinosaurs" could be split into two different categories... one for "fictional characters that are dinosaurs", and one for "fictional dinosaur species."

Okay, that was a huge rambling, and I hope I've not tread on anyone's toes with it - fortunately, I'm now done, and you can shoot all of this down, and tell me what I've been missing. :) -pinkgothic 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the cat from Rancor, Sauron, Lapras, Nidoqueen and King, D-War and Guiron. It can probably go from many of the others too. Megalopseudosuchus can probably flat out get deleted. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sabine. Actually, fictional dinosaurs aren't (or haven't) really been under the purview of this project; we deliberately excluded fictional dinosaurs and dinosaurs in fiction from WP:DABS and they were never in the running for the List of dinosaurs. It's just impossible to keep track of all the cruft and utter trash people want to add to Wikipedia. I've removed the category from Rhyperior, Rhydon, Rhyhorn, Megalopseudosuchus, Kangaskhan, and Biollante. It's clear those are all mutant creatures, but it is not at all clear that they are dinosaurs. I left the ones that actually ended in -saur, as it's possible the creator meant for them to be dinosaurs, but I have no idea why a giant kangaroo was in the category. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's in our jurisdiction, including any creature in this category if their original source does not explicitly state they are supposed to be dinosaurs (or, I guess, if they're obviously an exaggerated form of a specific type of dinosaur) is original research. So, the Vestatasaurus from King Kong would count, since it's described in detail in that companion book and obviously based on the Tyrannosaurus from the original. The Goddzilla from the 1998 US version would not count because it was shown in the movie to be a mutated iguana. Not sure abot the original Godzilla, was it ever described as a dinosaur? Rancor from star wars would certainly not count, unless there are secondary sources like novels that call it a dinosaur. Dinoguy2 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the original Godzilla was supposed to be a T. rex/Iguanodon/Stegosaurus mutant, according to some sources. Other sources substitute an alligator for Stegosaurus or Iguanodon, but it's still supposed to be, like, 2/3rds dinosaurian. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reactions, everyone! I'm glad my list proved useful. Seeing that my criteria don't seem to be that far off, I would be more than willing to, if it'd be in everyone's interest, to periodically (say, once a month) check the category and keep it clean (with notice on this talk page, of course), if it's giving you guys a headache you don't want - incorporating any decisions made, of course. Just say the word. -pinkgothic 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say on a cursory inspection the first two look like they're nearest the FAC finish line. There are alot of redlinks in Herrerasaurus but that isn't too hard to rectify cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Home Stretch to-do spot on Deinonychus as I figure it is the closest. Herrerasaurus is more obviously in need of a copyedit, which I will have a look at.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When I get back on the 15th I expect all of these to be featured! Get to work! (cracks whip) Sheep81 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty close to a vacation actually. :) I get to go look at animals in South Africa and Botswana for free, that's pretty vacation-like, I'd say. Barely counts as "work", anyway. Sheep81 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

OK - been tweaked this morning -I can't stand the suspense any longer. Any other fixes will take less than 7 days to fix surely. Nominated away...............cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I sent out a few messages to other heavy contributors to the article, in the hopes that they may have additional suggestions for improvement. Since Deinonychus is so close to birdkind, we might ask for input from WP:BIRD editors, too. Gird yourself to defend the "puffin" illustration, of course. I probably won't weigh in right away, as I don't want to tip the scales before potential commentators have a chance to weigh in. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been rather quiet, for whatever reasons. The last couple have seemingly been pretty quick (Styracosaurus and Daspletosaurus). Herrerasaurus would be a good follow-up; I think it's close enough that it doesn't really need a collaboration. My guess is Plateo didn't attract much attention because we didn't have the refs and it has a daunting, annoyingly convoluted history. J. Spencer 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah..anyway, not a problem just yet. (c'mon vote or comment folks!) In some ways Lambeosaurus seems more settled than Herrerasaurus who's text looks a little choppy in terms of paragraphs etc.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't have any references for Platey, and was hoping someone else did. I'm off to support Deinonychus now; I waited long enough for objections. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, and I've got a dark horse in progress that I like more than Lambeosaurus, but it won't be ready for at least a week or two. After that, I'm planning on spending time with pterosaurs and physiology. J. Spencer 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just haven't done much with them for a while. A couple still need taxoboxes, for example. J. Spencer 14:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How does one go about sourcing a pop culture section when the dinosaur is prominent "stage dressing" but not usually involved in an action sequence, and what counts as a reliable source in such cases?

Featured Portal:

The Dinosaur Portal is now featured after having unopposed support in its nomination. A special thanks goes to J. Spencer who's helped maintain the portal & especially to all the dino team. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of you are truly bored, I could use some help in upgrading this article. Of course, there's not a lot of evidence, but it's interesting nevertheless. It started as a POV fork from Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, since I didn't want to waste several paragraphs describing Paleocene dinosaurs. Any help would be appreciated. Orangemarlin 06:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)